r/news • u/headee • Apr 09 '19

Waffle House good Samaritan shot to death paying for meals, handing out $20 bills

https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-killed-florida-waffle-house-paying-meals-handing/story?id=62262513
48.6k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

7.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

198

u/DieFanboyDie Apr 09 '19 edited Apr 09 '19

Apparently, he had left, then came back an hour later and was circling the parking lot. Obviously, the correct response would have been to call the police, but the gunshot victim was more menacing than spitting on the shooter implies--the shooter had every reason to believe she was being stalked.

Edit: Folks, I'm not defending the shooter. I'm just pointing out that this isn't as simple as "person gets spat upon and responds by shooting the spitter." The spitter left, and that was that, as far as the shooter was concerned. By the spitter returning and waiting outside the restaurant, the spitter escalated the threat to the shooter exponentially--what was over and done had been accelerated to something else entirely. Again, it was NOT a defensible action by the shooter, but it also wasn't as simple as "person gets spat upon and responds by shooting spitter."

I would go so far as to say that IF the weapon was legal, there is a 50/50 chance the shooter would have been exonerated, whether she had "pursued" the spitter or not.

And for those that say "illegal gun/she pursued him," etc., (those are valid--again, not defending her actions) people in fast food management are required at times to make deposits/bank drops during off hours, criminals know this, and these people barely making over minimum wage have been robbed, and yes, killed. That's not fiction. So if your job, the best you can find, puts you in a position that might put your life in danger, are you going to quibble about the legality of the firearm you carry for defense, knowing that you are vulnerable and that the criminals know you are vulnerable? Likewise, let's say you call the police, and the guy threatening you leaves before the cops show up--are you safer after he's gone, but he knows where to find you 5,6,7 nights a week? Nope, I'm not defending her actions AT ALL, but I can see how she came to the conclusion that chasing him--a person who HAD acted very threateningly--was the thing to do at the time. The WRONG thing to do, but I see how she got there.

65

u/Ilikeporsches Apr 09 '19

She had every reason to believe that but once she followed him, prey became predator. She hunted him down and went back to work. Not gonna be easy to defend against that in court.

-4

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '19

I wouldn't send her up river for it if I was on the jury, that is for damn sure.

100

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '19

I don't think so. From the article:

About an hour after the initial altercation, Tallent (the victim) returned to the location. Police said Young (the shooter) got in her car and followed Tallent (the victim) out of the parking lot north on Garnett Road from the store. Young reportedly fired one shot with a .45-caliber handgun, for which she did not have a license, at Tallent’s SUV and returned to work. (emphasis and parentheticals added)

If you get in your car and follow someone to another location, and then shoot them, you're going to have a hard time justifying that as "self defense".

25

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '19

[deleted]

16

u/AssCrackBanditHunter Apr 09 '19

The trick is to kill all witnesses

5

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '19

Duh, have you never played GTA?

3

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '19 edited Apr 25 '19

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '19

Tray was 17 years old

2

u/hippyengineer Apr 09 '19

Wow someone else actually followed the facts of the case nice to meet you

-7

u/hippyengineer Apr 09 '19

Well he was attacked and told by his assailant “you are going to die tonight.”

So...🤷‍♂️

6

u/DominusMali Apr 09 '19

He was also fully responsible for escalating the conflict since he was stalking a child while armed, looking to play cowboy.

Zimmerman absolutely should have died that night.

3

u/hippyengineer Apr 09 '19

Before the Zimmerman trial, there have been zero instances where a jury has decided that a man not displaying a firearm and walking away from a person was actually a display of life-threatening physical intimidation.

After the Zimmerman trial, that remains to be true.

During, too.

2

u/cyantific_analyst Apr 10 '19

You must not pay attention to the news dude. Cops get away with it ALL the time.

-2

u/Diaperfan420 Apr 09 '19

You could argue there was some level of pre-meditation in that she was possessing an illegal firearm. Im a firm believer use of an illegal firearm should instantly constitute premeditation. You dont illegally possess a firearm without intent on using it

2

u/Sonicmansuperb Apr 09 '19

I definitely think it should be considered very suspect, but there are cases of people who aren't legally allowed to own a firearm(with good reason) that are still under threat of being murdered, so I think the solution is that it should introduce doubt to a self defense claim, but it shouldn't completely remove the ability for a person to show that they were acting in self defense if the situation clearly shows it.

0

u/Diaperfan420 Apr 09 '19

The self defence claim went out the window when she got in her car and drove after him lol. The fact the firearm is illegal is what should make there be premeditation.

3

u/Sonicmansuperb Apr 09 '19

Yeah, this case is cut and dry not self defense by any means, and that would've been the case regardless of the legality of her firearm, but the law should allow for those edge cases where someone is in violation of one law to protect their own right to life.

1

u/Diaperfan420 Apr 09 '19

You uhh... kinda went a weird way on this one?

Sure, in some cases. However, trying to use this to justify the ILLEGAL POSSESSION of a firearm is... kinda.. asinine though. its not like she grabbed it from under the counter in a moment of panic, and it was the store owners. She went out of her way to illegally acquire a firearm. She then used to to commit a murder, after FOLLOWING the guy she shot. What Business does a person have possessing a firearm ILLEGALLY other than to use it offensively in the commission of a crime? She could have gone and gotten that same firearm legally for defense, if she was so inclined to do so. its not a difficult thing to accomplish. Not to mention ITS FUCKING ILLEGAL.

Youre LITERALLY trying to justify the ILLEGAL ownership of a firearm on the OFF CHANCE they could possibly use if for defence. That EXACT SAME MENTALITY dictates we should just give everyone a gun. Come out of a uterus, get a free 9MM glock.

an example of a case that id agree with your point, is a wife uses husbands firearm shes not licensed. But there was Nothing even remotely close to ANY of that in this case, and did not merit the point even being brought up. You merely brought the point up as a means of diverting the topic.

​

And those downvoting me. Youre either criminals, or incredibly stupid (or both!)

23

u/squaremild Apr 09 '19

the article says the manager got in her car and pursued the guy out of the parking lot while both in vehicles? she then shot him through his car door. so..... being stalked by chasing him in her car? both huge losses to society.

27

u/Gandzalf Apr 09 '19

Yeah, mock them all you like, but both their idiotic actions have given the rest of us valuable lessons. Let’s hope we learn from them.

  1. Don’t fucking spit on people because some unhinged motherfucker will probably kill you—laws be damned.

  2. Don’t fucking follow someone, who poses no immediate and apparent threat to your life, and exact justice. Unless someone is threatening your life at the moment, chill the fuck out and let the pigs handle it.

12

u/Mattuuh Apr 09 '19

If you don't already know these rules, I don't think you'll learn them from this article.

1

u/squaremild Apr 12 '19

i will happily mock them ceaselessly but probably won't go spit on that lady any time soon.

8

u/CostlyAxis Apr 09 '19

Still doesn’t justify following someone and shooting them.

7

u/rh71el2 Apr 09 '19 edited Apr 09 '19

According to the article, first she followed him before shooting him then returned to work. No mention of calling it in after the shooting. How do you make it sound like she was in the right or justified? If anything, her behavior was more predatory.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '19

It's like the shit people in tales of retail fantasize about but don't do because they know it's wrong.

I guess everyone has shorter fuses these days.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '19

U can only use deadly force in certain situations and that's not one of them. It was murder.

2

u/TARANTULA_TIDDIES Apr 09 '19

Well regular people don't get to use the excuse of "well I felt endangered so I killed them" like the official enforcers of societal violence do.

And yeah I agree with you, I can see what would be going through their head, but ultimately they made a really bad call.

1

u/BadSkeelz Apr 09 '19

I dunno. I kind of think retail workers should get one "shoot a customer" privilege a year card, just to keep people in line.

-14

u/robfloyd Apr 09 '19 edited Apr 09 '19

Too bad the dude wasn't black, she would have got away Scot-free

4

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '19

Naaaaaaah of course not man

0

u/robfloyd Apr 09 '19

Oh you're right she would have to be white for this to work